Greetings, * Chapman Flack (c...@anastigmatix.net) wrote: > On 03/01/22 13:22, David Steele wrote: > > I think people are going to complain no matter what. If scripts are being > > maintained changing the name is not a big deal (though moving from exclusive > > to non-exclusive may be). If they aren't being maintained then they'll just > > blow up a few versions down the road when we remove the compatibility > > functions. > > I might have already said enough in the message that crossed with this, > but I think what I'm saying is there's a less-binary distinction between > scripts that are/aren't "being maintained". > > There can't really be many teams out there thinking "we'll just ignore > these scripts forever, and nothing bad will happen." They all know they'll > have to do stuff sometimes. But it matters how we allow them to schedule it.
We only make these changes between major versions. That's as much as we should be required to provide. Further, we seriously changed around how restores work a few versions back and there was rather little complaining. Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
